Healthy boundaries and nearness to other people…

the first sprout (photo: S. Thomas)

How do we create them? Or not take them away?

So the latter grown up can protect her/himself adequately and in the best case without even thinking on this.

Can a person whose boundaries have been violated, even severely violated, recover? And end up protecting her/himself constructively and efficiently?

Yes, I think she/he would be able, with adequate help of some kind. Not just by new thought-patterns, new thinking and/or new behaviors!! The less harmed are maybe helped with this though. *

But by being allowed and helped to question and condemn what was done. By a person (books or literature) where what she/he was exposed to isn’t minimized or belittled at all.

Because I think the nature of the defenses is of that kind that you can’t control them or at least not control your feelings. For instance see what Jenson writes about Jane who continued to blame herself even though she had been able to live up to a lot of things she had been taught in therapy.

From earlier postings (slightly edited):

“Jane, who has gone to ACA or CODA meetings once a week more than one year and read many self help books on co-dependency and dysfunctional families. She has leaned to tell her husband that she doesn't want to go fishing on their vacations or meet his family each Christmas and that the children shall have a say in this too (putting a stop to things). She doesn't let her co-worker put his arm around her any more just like that (posing boundaries), she has stopped calling her mom many times a day to ‘make’ her go to mammography (refusing a responsibility that isn't hers), and she has created routines so all share the work in the household.

Jane still feels hurt, angry, embittered, set aside, neglected, ignored, afraid of saying and even thinking certain things. She can't just relax and read a good book or take a walk (and enjoy it). She is still depreciating herself, feels insufficient as wife and mother, and wonders if she is doing enough well at work. She thinks she is mean to her husband and kids and that she ought to control her temper better. Insights which have developed in parallel with her new understanding of herself. Despite all she has done and tried to change as the good girl, satisfying the therapists (and the other members) in the group(s) she has joined.”

There are different boundaries you can violate. Such as not only sexual or physical, but also emotional ** (not letting the child have secrets for instance). Ingeborg Bosch for instance has written about this, so has Anna-Luise Kirkengen. Stepping over emotional boundaries is also extremely harmful.

See earlier postings on what violations actually are and about that emotional needs are essential for survival.

Alice Miller writes/says about therapy and therapists, and I think she is right:

“Certainly, if I knew of some therapists who would be respectful enough to answer your questions; free enough to show indignation about what your parents have done to you; empathic enough when you need to release your rage pent up for decades in your body; wise enough to not preach to you forgetting, forgiveness, meditation, positive thinking; honest enough to not offer you empty words like spirituality, when they feel scared by your history, and that are not increasing your life-long feelings of guilt…” (Alice Miller).

“The method of Marshall Rosenberg is very nice and may be helpful to people who have not be[been??] severely mistreated in childhood. The latter ones however must find their pent up, LEGITIMATE rage and free themselves from the lies of our moral system. As long as they don't do this, their body will continue to scream for the truth with the help of symptoms" (Alice Miller)

And about becoming stuck in anger (or hatred):

“Feeling and understanding the causes of our old pain does not mean that the pain and the anger will stay with us forever. Quite the opposite is true. The felt anger and pain disappear with time and enable us to love our children. It is the UNFELT, avoided and denied pain, stored up in our bodies, that drive us to repeat what have been done to [and which gives us all sorts of troubles]." (Alice Miller in an answer to a reader’s letter May 24, 2008, relating to a talk between Andrew Vachss and Oprah Winfrey)

and about a "failing" client:

“If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility and blames the client for failures, you inevitably land in the same fairways (waters) as the sect-guru, who also promises entire liberation. Such promises only produce self-destructive dependence which stands in the way for the individual’s liberation.” (Alice Miller in “Paths of Life” in my amateur translation from the Swedish edition of this book).

Sigrun wrote a blogpost about (in my amateur translation) “Nearness sort of”:

“As an earlier victim for violence and abuse through a lot of years I have to say that the concept ‘violence in close relations’ doesn’t feel good. The closeness that was forced upon me during the abuses are so painful that it had been nice not being forced to become reminded each time I come across this conception (something that happens daily).

What’s the reason why you can’t talk about relational violence instead?

I don’t think it is right using notions that become a burden for the ones that are concerned.”

* The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes in her book at page 82 about Daniel Goleman and his concept Emotional Intelligence (a concept that can be, is, manipulative, but may help short term):

“The reader should be aware that many of the ideas on emotional development put forward in Mr. Goleman's book are contrary to PRI [Past Reality Integration therapy] ideas. In PRI it is not considered as desirable for young children to control their ‘socially undesired’ emotions or feelings such as fear and anger. When this sort of behaviour is desired by adults of children PRI regards it as poisonous pedagogy.

/…/ Also, many of the behaviors that are considered by Mr. Goleman to be essential elements of ‘emotional intelligence’, are considered by PRI to be defenses (False Hope and False Power Denial of Needs) employed in order to avoid feeling pain. The general profile of Golemans ‘emotionally intelligent’ person fits the PRI idea of someone who is quite defensive, albeit in a socially desirable way. This might therefore lead to social success, while simultaneously sacrificing contact with the True Self and inner autonomy.”

And Jennifer Freyd writes at page 195 in her book:

“For a child dependent on abusive caregivers, lack of internal connection can help maintain some sort of external connection to necessary others. But I disagree with those such as Daniel Goleman (1985), who suggest that while truth is generally a good thing, some times even privileged members of our society are best served by living with ‘vital lies’ in which the truth is best kept from oneself and one’s intimate partners.”

**

"...of all the many forms of child abuse, emotional abuse may be the cruelest and longest-lasting of all.” "Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers himself unworthy—unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and protection." (Andrew Vachss)

An authoritarian society…

The authoritarian school was (and is) a reflection of the society in whole? And how it was in the family, or vice versa: people looked up at teachers as authorities and representatives for the power? Now it's almost the opposite?

I have started to read the book about Lev Vygotsky “Vygotskij i praktiken – bland plugghästar och fusklappar” or “Vygotsky in praxis – among swots and crib slips” written by the psychologist Leif Strandberg (here more about him and his ideas - in Swedish though, and here about “The Swedish National Agency for School Improvement” in English).

Strandberg starts his book with a story from his first year in school (1957), when he was 7. His female teacher asked Leif how much four plus four was. Leif looked at his fingers. He bent his thumbs into the palm of his hands and saw four fingers on each hand.

“Eight!”

he replied.

“That’s right!”

his teacher said.

“But try to count in your head! So, hands on your back and now I ask again; what’s four plus three?”

Now it became more difficult for the small Leif. Having his hands on his back was difficult too in those desks then. And it was harder just counting in his head. But he managed and the teacher said he was right and that it was good he counted in his head, and that this was a sign he had “a good head for studying.”

He doesn’t know if his teacher was aware that the small boy still used his hands and fingers behind his back, but he himself started to doubt if he actually had a good head for studying!

Crib slips (fusklappar) and counting on your fingers were bad. This was almost even sinful then he writes. It was wrong whispering, wrong sending notes, wrong helping a mate, wrong taking help from a classmate and it was definitely wrong moving around the desks and in the class room.

One should sit down, all by her/himself and work silently.

One should have things in ones head. If one didn’t one had to “have it in ones legs,” and in the best case this was a sort of talent too - but of a lower quality – in the worst a defect. Some had it in the head and others in their legs.

This apprehension stamped what people in general thought about what talent was. It also stamped what science had to say about talent and intelligence; that it was something inherent. It also stamped how societies were built. In industrial communities (here at least) the ones with “heads for studying” lived highest up in beautiful villas, under them there was a wreath of talented clerks (employees?) and near the factory – where most people lived – the body of workers lived.

The notion about talent as an inner mental state of course formed how schools were organized. There were many methods for judgment, differentiation and sorting so one could "sift the wheat from the chaff" (sålla agnarna från vetet); the ones who "had it in their heads" from "practicians," secondary modern school (realskolor) from vocational schools (yrkesskolor), general courses from special courses. And at last this division felt natural and also suited the society which didn’t need so much thought-power (tankekraft) but a lot of people working with their bodies (this is different today?).

In this historical context psychological theories which confirmed intelligence as an inner mental state had a given place he thinks.

Now it looks as there is a backlash in this respect: a division AGAIN. Classifications! Not developing the whole human being any more! I wonder quite frankly if this reflects how limited our politicians are (too many of them)? And this also seems to be applauded by many other in society, not least those voting on those politicians. This is scary I think! Haven't we understood more, hasn't the society developed more, hasn't child-raising and the awareness become developed more? There are many harmed, hurt? Who don’t begrudge children possibilities in growing up in freedom to living human beings? And not begrudging other grown up people being or becoming alive?

When I read pedagogy long ago we spoke about that what sort of view on society (samhällssyn), man (människosyn) and knowledge (kunskapssyn) one has is (of course) reflected in how one handle things: how teachers meet their pupils, how schools are organized, our views on learning, peoples' inner drives etc. etc. etc. And that there exists different views on society, man and knowledge.

Strandberg meets these old views still today he thinks; views on learning, how many see learning still, and talent etc. A view on thinking and talent as inner qualities, a view that has a strong hold over our notions still he thinks.

And I know of a girl who had it easy in school, her first teacher said to her parents that she was talented. They hadn't really thought of this earlier, not really being aware of it, but she spoke early, very early. She had it easy with practical things too - and had creative talents, as in music, dancing, drawing, theater etc. Of some reasons she was allowed developing all those sides, but in other ways she was held hard and limited, restricted... Later on she sat silently at school, didn't ask the teachers for help, tried on her own, with almost everything... She didn't continue with being the one she once was... Active, creative, fantasizing...
Our current school minister want an authoritarian school back in my view and feeling to say it straight. Is it what Miller wrote: about the wild youth being a sign that they haven’t been held enough hard? When it maybe is the opposite? But held hard in other ways than earlier or mistreated in other ways, neglected etc.? Or treated in other ways with the results we see today. So what would the right medicine be? I don’t like his ideas AT ALL. And he is younger than Leif Strandberg, the author of the book I'm referring to, born 1962, thus 12 years younger than Strandberg!! What has he been exposed to during his childhood? I get so upset and filled with feelings, emotions so I don't find the words!

Strandberg wonders if we are focussing on the wrong part of the body.Think if the division in a good head for studying or practicians is a mistaken, faulty classification, and that our notion that one shall have things in the head isn’t correct and if the idea that children shall sit still, not use crib slips, not cheat and not ask class mates is wrong, yes, even mad.

Even IF the head plays a role, WHAT role does it play? How do things get into the head? Seeds planted and growing there? Is it something inherited? Does it come from the heaven?

Vygotsky meant that inner processes - what’s in the head - have been preceded by outer activities together with other people, with the support of different tools, in specific cultural contexts, milieus.

He means that it is in the outer activities the child and adult, i.e., the human being, creates the raw material (råmaterial) for inner processes. Without this raw material nothing happens in the head. Whispering, crib slips and cheating are with other words not something sinful that shall be eliminated but on the contrary something that should become encouraged and developed - because this is the base of learning.

Vygotsky means that it is in peoples' factual and practical world psychological processes have their ground, has their origin.

He talks about "activities between the heads"; what people do together. For the first, it is always about something social; our individual competences comes from different forms of interactions with other people. I learn together with others what I can do myself later. My inner thinking has been preceded by outer thinking together with others. What does reading books mean in this? Through books learning about other worlds?

Outer activities with the help of tools precedes inner work of thoughts. Without counting on the fingers, no counting in the head.

Human beings activities are always situated; they take place in specific situations such as cultural contexts, rooms, places.

The fourth characteristic for activities leading to learning and development is that they are creative; they step over given boundaries. Human beings can use not only relations, tools and situations but also recreate them. Here is a great potential for development; in peoples' creative participation in development work. See earlier posting on creativity and stress.

This with what sin is, shame, perfectionism, for your own good...

Morning reflections...

the dreadful (gruvliga) part of the town, not the sweet or delightful (ljuvliga). The poor people lived here earlier, but now these small red-painted houses are pretty expensive.

[Updated during the day]. Jenson writes at age 73-79 in her book "Att återerövra sitt liv" or "Reclaiming Your Life" about a pair, Mary and Joe, with problems in their relation. Joe is joiner and has become unemployed. But he doesn’t want to take his share of the work at home now when he doesn’t have a work any longer.

Mary works as nurse and has had the total responsibility for the home at the same as she has worked full time.

Joe gets very irritated when his kids or wife want something from him (his childhood story Jenson thinks), and Mary takes a lot of responsibility on her and has done from they got married.

When Mary can’t stand the situation and starts lashing out on her kids and gets headache and an enormous tiredness she wonders if she has got a depression and consults a doctor she works with. When he has heard her history and that her mother also suffered from depressions he thinks there is a hereditary tendency for depression and prescribes mood-rising medicine.

For a while their problems are relieved. But a pair like Mary and Joe often gradually realizes that antidepressants doesn’t lead to any positive changes and seek family advisory service (counselling or therapy for pairs).

This can be a good start – if the family counsellor understands that it is childhood experiences at the root of the problems. The relation is possible to improve, but to achieve the final healing, which gives the best possibility to create a sound closeness and a prospering love relation both need to work on their early experiences/history (take a look at it maybe for the first time, question things and see them as wrong etc.), not just relearn from the outside so to say (my, a little free, interpretation).

And they need to encounter a counsellor/therapist who understands these things (and has worked on them her/himself). I think Jenson is right, but the work doesn't necessarily has to be done through regular, proper (regelrätt) regressive or primal therapy... But a therapy where one gets help to process and integrate ones history. Without this the changes will be small and shallow. And maybe some ARE satisfied with this, of course.

And - this work is probably also so hard and painful so many retreat of understandable reasons?

Yesterday a female colleague (47 or 48 years) hitch-hiked from the music-school (and three workplaces meetings - phew!!) to a school we both work on on Mondays and she told me how she had it at home at present, upset (we have known each other for long). With husband, an old mom, and everything. How exhausted she is on Fridays (when we get vacation colds break out and things like that). But now she tries to get up early to take a walk (get some exercise) to prevent this and take care of herself.

Her dad recently died in cancer and her mom couldn’t stay in their house alone (and they have recently established the mom has a weak heart, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, what we call KOL etc. etc. and she got very worried over all this, and has to take all this). The mom has moved to an apartment in the town one month ago or so though and x thought maybe now things would calm down (and on top the new owners of the house complained about things in the house, so they have had to deal with this TOO).

X has two teenage kids, and they are reacting too in different manners (the son with compulsory behaviours. Yes, x is very open-hearted. And they have tried to treat this with changing his behaviour - only?).

x's only brother, 6 years older (and not married) died in cancer a few years ago, and x had to be hand holder to her parents in this - too. So she has no unloading (avlastning) through other siblings either now, to handle old parents sickness for instance. But she hadn't earlier either? And one can wonder whose responsibility things are too (for other grown up people,like her parents for instance, easy to say though)?

X has taken antidepressants and been in therapy or counseling for a lot more than ten years. Her husband has been to a therapist too, pushed by his wife. And it is possible they have been in therapy for couples for a short time…

And at work x is very responsible-taking, with a lot of initiatives. And she is quite outspoken and spontaneous, quite open about hers, and says things from the bottom of her stomach (med stödet).

But despite all this very little has actually changed I think!

She is still in counselling I think and maybe that has held her on her feet. But isn’t something lacking in this counselling/therapy? Or are real, genuine improvements impossible?

I think this man is right about how it is in the society (and in therapy too), see here.

Addition before lunch: Too great nearness can invoke fear in one of two… And feel like a violation to one of the parts. But this part can nevertheless feel a need to keep the individual who makes him (her) frightened, keep her (him) in his (her) grip in different manners (be attracted AND afraid). At the same time as this person fears she (he) is going to get too near he (she) can try to create, and maintain, a dependence relation, yes, even a sort of property relation with the one he (she) is fearing, through different manoeuvres, explicit or implicit, subtle and less subtle. For example about what is possible (and allowed) to speak of, and what not. Even concerning things that are important for one of the parts (the private/personal life, a passion, even that person’s work etc.).

Where the one kept is stifled in many different ways (both subtly and less subtly, but where the mechanisms perhaps aren’t clear for either part in what is happening, where the parts are confused over what’s happening, or at least one of them), and thus more and more limited and restricted, in all those traits that perhaps originally was attracting? Maybe liveliness that attracted?

Measures are taken which shall prevent an engagement that inspires to fear. Through this process the other is held on distance, between boundaries that feel safe. Through suffocating the other and at the same time demanding that the other shall be at ones disposal. But a controlled disposal, that isn’t frightening.

In a pair relation (love, friend etc.) which functions "normally" there “has” to be a mutual narcissistic confirmation (Marie-France Hirigoyen writes at page 30-31). But a pair driven by a perverse narcissism constitutes a deadly union; the degradation and attacks in the hidden, secret then becomes systematic.

The process is only possible with one part’s too great tolerance. But it isn't sure both agree to who has shown and is showing the greatest tolerance (or who is the most "tolerant", sensitive/insensitive, self-occupied/less self-occupied). Or do both (always) think in those terms (labeling the other)?

It can be about approval of a role as the caring about the other parts narcissism, a sort of mission where she (or he) has to sacrifice herself (himself).

And never the two meet... Sometimes even very sad - and tragic. To all involved. Not only to one of the two but both (all involved, if more people are involved).

PS. And with a sigh, I AM long winded, and I use question marks after statements, because I am wondering about things, not bomb-proof on things, testing thoughts, searching myself forward (onward?)...

Earlier postings under the labels empathy deficit, EQ and SQ. And I don't say I don't suffer from empathy deficits, or that I have any EQ and SQ to speak of... A totally hopeless case? More than people in general? Unable to teach, how much I even work and try and read?

I wouldn't quote a friend who was saying stupid, lousy things, but a friend saying good things, things I think more people ought to hear (if they should read what I write). Not link to a friend saying, writing stupid things. Maybe mention things I react against, if other people (than friends and people I respect) write stupid things (stupid in my mind, feelings, thoughts).

Addition in the evening: I got some books with the mail today. One was "Nystart i livet - hitta tillbaka till livsglädjen efter utbrändhet" by a Madeleine Åsbrink (her home site in Swedish). Translated a little freely it would be "Starting anew - finding the joy of living again after a burnout" (the other book was one about Lev Vygotsky). See this article in a Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet.

At page 19 in the first book it stands, also this a little freely translated:

"I look myself around and see that there aren't many (role) models [there are very few successful, 'perfect' relations?]. In most cases one wants more in a relation than the other. This makes nearness impossible, a nearness we are all longing for but many times are unconsciously afraid of."

At page 20 she writes:

"I think many people clench their teeth and try with showing a facade that isn't true or genuine [the hypocrisy was worse 40-50 years ago though? Then one clenched the teeth even more?]. This work [with clenching and clenching our teeth] only drain our power and strength and doesn't lead to any changes [we have no power for these, or much less power for them?]."

I have many tired women (young and old) around me.

We have done an evaluation with the group I am one of the responsible for. On the last meeting yesterday we spoke about what the students have written. They want to make a journey of some kind as a kickoff this fall when we start again, to learn to know each other and especially the new ones.

With a smile I couldn't help saying:

"And I know who answered what, and it is the 'social' girls wanting this!"

They boys (in general) doesn't care really about those things. This is also something stress research has found; that women (in general) care (more) about the atmosphere at work (than men in general) and as the atmosphere and stress has become worse the last 15 years (economic steel bath and slimmed organizations) this has become another burden for women.

Phenomena in the society today...

I read a blogposting yesterday by a woman, Jenny W. (in her thirties I think, and married to a white man with whom she has a small son? So she isn't very old and is also married to or living with a white man!) which triggered this blogposting and many thoughts - and emotions. A blogposting with the heading (my amateur-translation) “Mohohohahah… Why (I have such difficulties with) white guys?”

She starts it with (my quick amateur-translation):

”OK, the freak-society IS here. I.e., the society where you laugh at other peoples’ ill health and sufferings, or with other words everything the Jackass-programmes have shown a longer time.

In the Jackass-programmes [I haven’t seen them, and didn’t know about them earlier. Their home-site?] young white men with impregnable [ointaliga] bodies have chopped, cut, burnt and tormented themselves in a sort of reality-slapstick/gladiator-plays-TV, which have been unassailable [oantastliga, not allowed to question] because the young men have themselves chosen to expose themselves for this. But the indisputable development of events [odiskutabel händelseutveckling] which lies in the pipeline for these sorts of programme-ideas are though a grave pushing of boundaries, where pain and bodily injuries are made to humour, which then imperceptibly [omärkligt] but implacably [obönhörligt] are made 'funny' in circumstances where people have chosen not to get hurt. But, hehe, isn’t it quite fun hey… Look when that CP-guy is sort of tripping over [snavar]… hehe, it’s mean, but, sorry folks, that’s who I am.”

This Jenny has read about the reactions to the hacking of a home-site of epileptics in USA in (young men’s) blogs here. A hacking which has caused epileptic attacks in some users and attacks of laughter in others (I didn’t know about this earlier either, which certainly is no loss actually!!). She suspects that what has been entirely destroyed (my free interpretation) in these young white men’s world order is the distinction between what one can laugh at and what one allow oneself to laugh at.

I am thinking of a lot of other phenomena in society.

Contempt for weakness…

What are they laughing at actually? Are they laughing off what they themselves have had to stand? But this is no excuse at all for their later behaviour.

And people are scorned, scoffed at for writing as they are writing, even if they aren't harming anyone and not forcing anyone to read what they have written…

Humiliation-TV...

See Bob Scharf’s essay on Reality-TV from the psychohistory-list.

And our current government has fired the highest boss for the Swedish Public Employment Service or AMS in Swedish Bo Bylund all of a sudden. With no real motivation. Quite authoritarian. The critic is hard from the trade-union’s part it stands in the paper today.

“An incredibly bad personnel-politics”

they say. And a woman in the trade-union wants an investigation/inquest of the conditions for the employment for governments’ offices, how they look, and how one do when the employees (highest up?) become “liquidated”.

Yes, what sort of tendencies are there in society today? Many boundaries are pushed everywhere? And quite authoritarian behaviours are allowed (not least in politicians, knowing "our best" for "Our own good" see Mller's "For Your Own Good - Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence", in our current government not least, but also in our former prime-minister Göran Persson. Yes, where are the roots lying)?

See a female leader-writer about the affair with Bo Bylund in the leader "Arbetsförmedlingen söker ny chef" this morning.

Additional thoughts: what sort of models are our politicians? Quite arrogantly (mis)using their power?

The leader-writer in the link above ends her leader with thinking that the (political) opposition has a great responsibility in creating an offensive opposition-politics in this case (how unemployed are treated, and the demands on them as they have become and are here today) and be clear in how the safety-systems shall look in the future. I agree.

But as it looks now we have to get used to that the right are demolishing and pulling down more and more of the Sweden which is known in the world (??): security/safety for all.

No, I didn’t vote for the current government (and I will never vote for these parties)…

Read: “Why People Don’t Trust Free Markets. The new science of evolutionary economics offers an explanation for capitalism scepticism” by Michael Shermer (also see here about him). It ends as follows:

“The strongest reason for skepticism of capitalism, however, is a myth commonly found in objections to both the theory of evolution and free market economics, and that is that they are based on the presumption that animals and humans are inherently selfish, and that the economy is like Tennyson’s memorable description of nature: ‘red in tooth and claw.’ After Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published in 1859, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer immortalized natural selection in the phrase 'survival of the fittest,' one of the most misleading descriptions in the history of science and one that has been embraced by social Darwinists ever since, applying it inappropriately to racial theory, national politics, and economic doctrines. Even Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley, reinforced what he called this ‘gladiatorial’ view of life in a series of essays, describing nature ‘whereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest live to fight another day.’

If biological evolution in nature, and market capitalism in society, were really founded on and sustained by nothing more than a winner-take-all strategy, life on earth would have been snuffed out hundreds of millions of years ago and market capitalism would have collapsed centuries ago. This is, in fact, why WorldCom and Enron type disasters still make headlines. If they didn’t — if such corporate catastrophes caused by egregious ethical lapses were so common that they were not even worth covering on the nightly news — free market capitalism would implode. Instead it thrives, but just as eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, so too must it be for free markets, since both are inextricably bound together.”

It stands for instance about Shermer at the Swedish site of wikipedia:

"Shermer har skrivit flera böcker som försöker förklara den allestädes närvarande tron på irrationella eller obevisade fenomen. 'Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time' handlar om flera udda idéer och grupper, inklusive kulter /.../. Han har ägnat hela böcker åt förintelseförnekelse ('Denying History,' skriven tillsammans med Alex Grobman), och tron på Gud ('How We Believe')."

Evilness and violence...

a witch going to Blåkulla at Maundy Thursday or Walpurgies Eve to dance with the devil.

Jonathan Pincus writes at page 191-192 in the chapter "Hitler and Hatred" in his book "Base Instincts - What Makes Killers Kill?":

“Is it not possible that there is a relationship between violence in the home and terrorism? Those in any society who support or participate in murder and terrorist acts have the ‘respectability’ of being violent for political or religious reasons [or for loyalty with a cult and its ideas], but the triad (child abuse, brain injury, and paranoia) does not know political, ethnic or religious boundaries and could find its outlet in a ‘worthy’ cause [violence justified for the sake of the cause or idea! Which they have to defend? And even a ‘good cause’ justifies violence in an abused person’s eyes, as when it comes to recovery and Miller, and also in therapy and help-groups, where you think abuse is justified for the sake of the cause??? Forcing a person back to the right path with violence and abuse is justified and/or legitimized in the abused person’s eyes? But, still not all react in that way!??].

In a society that permits or encourages the stigmatization of a group of people, mental illness and/or brain damage may not be necessary to produce homicidal violence. The violent impulses generated by abuse could be expressed by medically normal abused individuals in a sick society.

The unrestrained approval of violence in certain political parties and gangs may make such groups attractive to the abused. Although we have very little information about the family dynamics of the members of terrorist organizations, I believe that the history of physical and sexual abuse, and even mental illness, paranoia, and brain damage, is prevalent among them. If a society (defined as a country, political party, or group) removed the demand that its members behave in a non-violent manner toward its enemies, brain damage and mental illness would not be necessary to unleash the impulses to violence that were engendered by early abuse. If society says, ‘You are now free to rape, torture, and kill our enemies’, the abused may respond with enthusiasm. [But] Not every American soldier in Vietnam committed atrocities, nor did every German in WW II, or every Arab in the PLO. What is the difference between the violent and nonviolent members of such societies? I would postulate that early childhood abuse distinguishes perpetrators from nonperpetrators.”

And as Anja wrote in her posting “I beg to differ” (my translation from Swedish):

“The problem with the notion that ‘the society sanctions evilness’ is that this frees the perpetrators from (any) responsibility and gives the responsibility to the people who didn’t act [and the victims can become blamed: Your own fault!? You deservd it! You made me this angry! etc.]. A classical manoeuvre. The one that has acted wrongly can with a thesis like this in his (her) back always ask

‘Why didn’t anyone hinder me from committing those inhuman crimes?’”